Good examples. Also note, left-handed people were also considered evil and as wrong as gays for centuries by Christianity. In fact, the Italian word "sinistra" for left was based on the latin root for evil (sinister).

There is no Adam and Eve just as there is no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Your hate is based on child like ignorance. Organized religion of your sort is merely a group of simpletons befuddled and controlled by fictitious characters and stories. Everyone has a right to believe in whatever fantasy they want, but when you twist it into hate then you are evil.

I have a question for those who favor the gay marriage;
Would you be ok if your child (male or female) brings a spouse who has the same sex as your child?
Maybe I am old fashioned but I would not be ok, and I would not want schools and society to teach my kids that the same sex marriages are ok.

I know I will get thousand critiques that it is up to my kids to determine...

Not one legal, political, ethical or religious reason against allowing gay marriage remains unanswered. Just ask the judiciary of the The United States Of America. They have successfully argued, point by point, against every "reason" listed below, and have found in favour of gay marriage. I would rather trust an august body of thinking people rather than listen to a few hysterics from the mob.

living in a country with gay-marriage I can say that there was little backlash and that society did not collapse. On the contrary.
Basically what I'm saying is that people like you are making a mockery of marriage. But -assuming you are married- your own. Is you're marriage so weak that it is threathened by two individuals who love each other getting married? If so, I pity you for you are indeed in need of some pity. If it isn't then I don't see why you're meddling in other people's affairs. It's none of your business and I suggest you keep your nose focused on your own affairs.

-------------

As for the people saying that the state should get out of marriage: I suggest checking history a bit before coming to the conclusion that marriage has always been the business of the state. For as long as Mankind has been civilised government has been legislating marriage. Hammurabi's Codex, the oldest known has laws about marriage. Laws that were, at the time of writing, already old.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of homosexuality as a choice. Certainly, acting on homosexuality is a choice, just as acting on heterosexuality is. I know analogies can be used to make the case for anything but I feel we must keep returning to interracial marriage and the fears over miscegenation. Certainly, no one MUST marry a person of a different race but denying this right does nothing to promote a healthy society apart from legitimizing bigotry.

Also, you state you that your church appointed a gay bishop and you were forced to leave. As I recall, no churches were forced out of the Episcopalian church when Bishop Robinson was ordained but rather some chose to leave because they could not accept such changes.

And though this may seem childish, I'd like to point out some other things that are considered "abominations" in the Bible:

Women wearing men's clothing, Deuteronomy 22:5 (No pants ladies!)

Defender of the guilty (we all knew defense attorneys were evil) Proverbs 17:15

Eating seafood, including escargot! Leviticus 11

But going beyond what the Bible says about homosexuality, we need to start thinking for ourselves in the 21st century about what is appropriate these days and where our values lay. If you are against humanism, than I suppose A.D. 1320 is a good place to search for a moral compass.

Women were not traditionally allowed to vote or hold equal positions as men in society; does this mean that we should respect tradition and revoke their rights to vote and equal pay?

Black Americans were not traditionally allowed equal rights in the United States, even in northern, free states. Should we nullify the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Similarly, most states had anti-miscegenation laws in place for a long time, some not being repealed until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. So, traditionally, interracial marriage was non-standard and clearly not supported by many citizens. Was repealing those laws wrong just because tradition dictate them as standard in history?

Tradition and legal precedent do not dictate what is right or constitutional. Just because a justice ruled something 80 years ago does not mean it should govern everything we ever do after that time.

Civil rights are only attained with change! If the Economist had a graph showing change in public opinion about the women's vote in 1920-21 or the Civil Rights Act in 1963-4, I bet the same trend would show up.

Marriage has both religious and civil (legal) aspects. In secular societies it makes perfect sense in terms of the recognition of human rights that same-sex civil marriage be permitted alongside heterosexual marriage. In the religious context it also makes sense that individual religions prohibit the marriage of same sex couples in accordance with their beliefs. Both can exist side-by-side in secular societies such as the United States.

It makes perfect sense for those to whom the issue of the religious banning of same-sex marriage is important to distinguish that by "We were married in the church of ___."

From a strictly economic point of view, gay, lesbian or bisexual people bear no burden on society with perhaps one exception they do not contribute to the growth in population. Whilst a petty reason to deem a cost to society, if anything it will balance out the fears of over-crowded cities!

Based on what our country prides itself on, an equal and liberal place to prosper, the freedom of two men or two women to express their love through a civil partnership should be embraced and welcomed as a basic human right.

Fortunately we are becoming a society in which being gay is acceptable, however there is still a long way to go until, for instance, affection for the same sex is accepted publicly, or without discrimination wether it be through unintentional discomfort with same sex relations or intentional dislike.

It astounds me that people spend so much energy on passing judgements about others and the way they live their lives, especially when the lives of these 'others' are in no way affecting their own. (I somehow seriously doubt if these homophobes are inviting gay people over to dinner or interacting with them in any way). If these upholders of 'morality' (as defined by them), are so outraged by the lack of values in society, why don't they spend some of this precious energy doing some good for society - go volunteer in soup kitchens, deliver some meals for the homeless of aged, volunteer in a hospital etc etc. DO something good other instead of putting down the lives of people you do not know as evidence of your social conscience. Get a life people! And get over yourselves - find another way to feel better about your own lives and its shallowness.

The people who say "God says no to gay marriage" etc also seem to conveniently forget that the creator is apparently the Alpha and the Omega - He knows everything about what anyone will ever do, he created them in effect to do it. Why would this Creator then turn around and condemn people for being who they are. It seems these people should also believe in predestination and other such nonense. But these God-botherers always say they know exactly the thoughts of God, without question - the arrogance is remarkable.